policy options towards iran. then later, sheila krumholz, executive director for responsive politics refuse fund- raising numbers for super pac's released last week. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning. when the house of representatives meet this week, they will take up the insider- trading bill. this was spurred by a "60

minutes" ps. mitt romney is the winner in nevada. now the campaign goes to colorado, missouri. at the u.n., the security council failing to take action against syria as russia and china blocked the resolution. in syria, calls for president assad to step down. good morning, it is february fifth on this edition of "washington journal." our phone lines are open. >> you can also send us an e- mail or a tweet.

russia and china veto the u.n. resolution on syria. let's get the news from nevada. wrongness springs -- romney's brings to a nevada victory. the slick at the results from the silver state. mitt romney getting about 43% of the vote compared to 26% 4 newt gingrich, 18% for ron paul. mitt romney campaigning in colorado and then in head back to nevada to declare victory. >> president obama demonizes and denigrates almost every sector of our economy. i will instead make america the most attractive place in the world for businesses and job creators. [applause] by the way, i know how to do

that. myi'm elected president, priority will be about your job, not saving my own. host: the focus of the story is a billing error casino executive keeping newt gingrich's presidential hopes alive. he will provide more generous support if he becomes the republican nominee.

let's look at the delegate count. 1144 to be sacked. mitt romney has 97 delegates. ron paul, rick santorum in the teens. newt gingrich did not have a campaign rally last night. he did speak with supporters in nevada. this is what he had to say about this campaign. >> he has gone negative and it is working. i don't believe that the american people approve of the campaign which actually suppresses turnout. it is amazing, every county i carried in florida had increased turnout, every county that romney had was a decrease.

that should sober every republican in the country. is the only way that he wins is suppressing turnout, how will he do that in the fall? is the only way that he will wind is outspending 75 to one, how will that compared to president obama who will outspend him? host: the campaign goes to colorado, essentially a beauty contest in misery. -- in missouri. let's turn to our question this morning, we want to focus on syria and what happened yesterday at the detonations and what happened over several months with people killed in syria. russia and china blocked u.n. action on the crisis in syria.

this underlies said and makes shipping to what is the arab world's bloodiest revolt. >> the pictures are of the bodies as they await burial.

there are about half a dozen bodies pictured in the "new york times." from shelling, anywhere from 200-220. susan rice is the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. and she spoke in new york yesterday and here's what she had to say about russia and china's decision to veto the u.n. security council resolution. >> mr. president, the united states is disgusted that a couple of members of this council continued to prevent dust from fulfilling our sole purpose here -- prevent us from fulfilling our sole purpose here to deal with the problem in surry and a growing threat to regional peace and security. for months, this council has been held hostage by a couple of members.

they stand behind and the arguments and individual interests while the lane and seeking to strip bare and the text that would pressure assad to change his actions. this intransigence is even more shameful when you consider that at least one of these members continues to deliver weapons to assad. host: the comments of susan rise, the ambassador to the detonations in new york. -- the comments of susan rice, the ambassador to the united nations in new york. we want to your thoughts. what options are relevant? russia and china blocking the u.n. vote.

host: we will also hear from to the u.n. later in the program. we're joined from cairo. thank you for being with us. what are you seeing from your vantage point? >> obviously, among the syrian

opposition and members of the arab league who pushed for this opposition, this is a setback. they are saying that this means there is no political resolution to this crisis. that will mean that the syrian opposition could tehran increasingly toward armed struggle and any strength they could show in terms of convincing me international community to get behind them. host: the "in new york times" has a picture of the embassy in cairo and there was the illustrations and other embassies including here in washington, d.c. what are you seeing in egypt? >> the embassy was stormed. the syrian opposition has a tent set up here. i think that this will not be on the streets here that you will

see the fallout. gulf arab states that want to see assad on, now the u.n. is deadlocked on this. how are they going to push for this transition and syria now? you may see an increase in support for the syrian opposition in syria whether through arms, back in. the gloves are off and the conflict is likely to heat up. host: we are looking at some of the scenes courtesy of afp press. russia and china voted against a resolution. explain why china decided to join russia? >> i think that they both it

sort of share of version 2 seeing the international community, and change regimes or push for regime change in general. i think that there are significant business ties between china and syria. they have had close relations with assad historically than other members of the security council. you are seeing taiwan and russia get behind their ally. >> this will emboldened syria's president. in a interview that he did last month with barbara walters indicating that no government would kill its own people. >> they don't have a whole lot of credibility. there are a whole lot of

killings going on there by his government. i don't think that his words carry much credibility for many years in the international community. host: what will happen next in your opinion? >> the conflict will continue to escalate. the opposition has been gaining steam and they will turn increasingly to armed struggle now that they believe that the political process has dead-end did. president assad will come down harder and harder as we have seen in homes over the weekend with the shelling of an opposition neighborhood. host: we are talking with a

reporter in cairo. in terms of the support president assad has been getting, russia is a serious allied. some are calling this a failure of u.s. and western diplomacy. this was a watered-down version and then failed to get the support of those members of the u.n. security council. >> the watered-down resolution, the attempt to find a common language, a common ground, i think really did paper over a more fundamental split in the security council. russia would like him tuesday, the u.s. and the other members want him to go. part of us but cannot be resolved.

host: if you want to get into syria, what is it like for you to get into the country and then to file a story and see what happens? >> that the government has been giving ltd. fees is to journalists, 10 days mostly. other journalists have been going in illegally with the opposition fighters and smugglers from lebanon, from turkey. that is of this a dangerous covering at it out of damascus. it is limited. host: thank you so much for joining us from cairo and giving us your perspective. >> my pleasure. host: charles levenson is in cairo covering the developing stories in syria.

13 of the 15 security council members voting in favor of the arab league resolution. russia and china voting no. what are your thoughts. we're joined from hartford, conn. caller: the situation in syria is unacceptable. how can china and russia -- how can a key countries stop the entire world from bringing peace to a nation? in libya, gaddafi was taken out. that was the right decision. he was taken out of power. in syria, assad is killing his own people. what is the interest of russia

and china stopping peace coming to the world? this is unbelievable. host: thank you for the call. new can send us an e-mail or you can join the conversation on line at twitter. caller: in this argument, what is missing is that russia truly does not care about the people in this area. china does not care about the people and syria. they have horrible humanitarian records. with russia, it is economic interests. the same with china. we need to understand that russia and china do not have the same philosophy. if they don't think about you

and writes the way we do. they're not motivated by that. -- they don't think about human rights the way we do. host: thanks for the call. let's go to the code new york ece.s" peaci host: we're joined from new york. caller: i have a question for you that involves newt gingrich. it is there any way that we would be able to vote for him in ri?sou

this is the first election that i will be ever voting for. can we do a write in? host: i don't know the rules. they do not allow this in virginia. that is another state that newt gingrich is not on the valley. -- on the ballot. missouri, o defiance, on the subject of the u.n. resolution that failed. >> i agree with the chinese and the russian rules. this is just like we have done with israel and the palestinians. i did not see susan rice say a word about what has been going on in israel, what has been happening to the palestinians.

we have had probably 100 resolutions against israel. i agree with russia and china. host: from inside of the "new york times" host: here is what the russian ambassador had to say yesterday. course we cannot agree with the accusations against damascus. we believe the threat of implementing sanctions is unacceptable. this approach contradicts the principle of a peaceful settlement based on a carmen syrian national dialogue.

-- common syrian national dialogue. this, considering the well known as events in north africa, can only be alarming. host: the comments from the the comments from the russian ambassador to the u.n. crowds gathered in homes for the first funerals of the dead. host: james, welcome to the

program. >> i am wondering why americans are so concerned about the 5000, 10,000 dead and syria and we're struggling seeing gruesome images of dead bodies and syria when we went in and killed hundreds of thousands in iraq and it was very difficult to see any images of dead iraqis. host: thank you for the call. what does china and russia gain from the veto of the resolution? could it be supplying goods and services to syria? also, money? caller: look at the provocateurs or agents of sabotage. the acts that are taking place in iran. the nuclear scientists that they have assassinated. the missile base with the

missile generals that were killed and all the troops that were killed. several different acts like that. who is doing that? my contention is, it is the british. they have been caught with their fraud. the euro is ready to go down. these guys are so desperate is that they will start of world war iii. the real target is russia and china. host: thank you. good morning, reaction to yesterday's decision by the security council. caller: i am with russia and china. first of all, and 80's and 90's, when africa was committing genocide against their people,

we did not step in. we went into two wars, afghanistan and iraq and there were no missiles of mass destruction or anything else. all we are is protecting the big oil companies. host: thank you for the call. - host: we are joined from florida. good morning. caller: good morning.

it is like we don't have a president. we hear no comment about this. have aike we don't representative president for us. it is very sad what is to win on farewell. -- over there. they have very little support. host: ok, thank you. on our twitter page, u.s. forces are capturing, killing, without trials. who are we to tell others that they are on civil -- uncivil? the president said "i strongly condemn the unspeakable insult against the people. --

host: good morning. caller: my comment on the veto, the resolution. i cannot understand why everyone is so upset about the chinese and russia. i am not wait -- i am not waivig but what the israelis do to the palestinians is unconscionable. when there is a resolution against the israelis, the first united veto it is the yo states. that is all i have to say. host: from the ""l.a. times"

next is anthony from long island. caller: good morning to you and your fans. i am an independent. we better not use one troop to go over there. he has murdered his people, yes. but every u.n. resolution that has been ratified or submitted for approval. the settlements have been built in palestine and the way that the israelis are treating the same type of people, the same group of people, just across the

land, just across the border. there has been no resolution approved by this government. an eye for an eye, but not young person should be sent there to fight this tyrant. israel is a tyrant as far as i'm concerned. host: good morning. caller: this seems like everyone is calling up supporting the bloodshed in syria and i just wanted to register my support for the people that are trying to revolt

against their government. it seems like the people of the united states should support this. host: thank you for the call. there is a peace in sight of "the new york times." the focus is on vladimir putin.

. host: inside the outlook section of the "washington post" a country getting a lot of attention the wrong revolution, the military not mubarak was the enemy of the people based on a new book. the obama administration is reviewed by lee smith saw its of revolution narrows and demand that mubarak step down as a full filament the president made in cairo that he and the united states would stand beside young muslims.

officials from the previous white house saw the revolution as a vend indication of george w. bush's -- vindication of the- pass pats review of a new book. randy is joining us from west virginia as we talk about the u.n. resolution credit. caller: good morning. host: please go ahead. caller: i'll tell you what. george w. bush, in my opinion, was probably one of the best presidents we ever had. we wouldn't have this problem if he was still there. host: thank you for the call.

a story about the syrian top pointing out out president assad's military will collapse within days or weeks according to an interview in the "sunday telegraph." its readiness to put up 40% of the hardware and 32% of personnel he said that the army will collapse some time in february. this is from the jerusalem post and reprinted. next is sandra from jasper, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. you were mentioning mr. putin and china, how they were going against. if anybody reads their bible this is like the headlines coming to pass. all the prophets and jesus tells about what is happening right now. china and russia will go together and they will go

against the middle east. their primary target will be israel. they will try to overthrow them. happening and l people can't see it and the antisell teufranti se semiactively isti a replay. >> this vote where they vetoed is another reason we ought to get out of that damn u.n. it is a joke, it has always been a joke and always will be a joke. thank you. host: our focus this morning the resolution yesterday which failed because of russia and china, its ability to reach an agreement among the 15 members of the security council. the u.s. ambassador to the united nations and the words see used is reprinted from the financial times, disgusted by china's and russia's inaction

and inability to reach the agreement even though it was a watered down version. in case you missed, here is what she had to say yesterday in new york. >> mr. president, the united states is disgusted that a couple of members of this council continue to prevent us from fulfilling our sole purpose here, addressing an of deepening crisis in syria and growing threat to regional peace and security. for months this council has been held hostage by a couple of members. the members stand behind empty arguments and individual interests while delaying and seeking to strip bare any text that would pressure assad to change his actions. this entrance generals is even more shameful when one of the

members continues to deliver weapons to assad. host: leon panetta and secretary of state clinton in munich trying to reassure european allies on defense issues. the story from "new york times" as panetta and clinton seeking to reassure them despite budget cuts in washington and coming withdrawal from the continent of about 7,000 american troops that the u.s. was not abandoning partners across the atlantic. some of you sending e-mail comment,on syria and the situation by the u.n. security council. a viewer in new jersey thank god for the signs of sapity shown by china and russia. there is no clear picture of what is shown in sir why.

host: rick from homestead, n. good morning. we missed the first part of what you had to say. caller: iraq has done things. afghanistan has bin laden. iran has ahmadinejad and syria has their guy. host: thanks for the call. why does the united nations sit shreupbtly when a-- silently when invasions of iraq take place before the watching eyes and act with indignant rage against the leadership when

unrest occurs in places lake libya and syria. the answer is in a word, corruption. chris on the phone now from florida. you are on the air. we are having trouble hearing you. from "new york times" front page story fighting to the finish in afghanistan the most dangerous place and inside a photograph the hard way out winding down the war means pushing deeper into taliban country every day. the phone lines are open. the numbers are on the bottom of the screen. we are getting your reaction to the u.n. security council vote yesterday syria a resolution aimed at syria and russia and china vetoing the resolution. good morning. where are you phoning from? caller: boston. host: go ahead.

caller: my comment is this. thank god we've got obama for president and he is cleaning up the mess that was created in the pa past. thank god we have a man who is intelligent, who takes his time before he reacts. at this time in history that is exactly what is needed. if you look back it the past, we went to iraq and that was the wrong move. we had them becomesed -- boxed in. america, please wake up. think about who he is, where he came from, who his parents were, it should be an indication that there's a reason why he is president. it may be to save under the circumstances fr-- it may be to save us from ourselves. host: good morning, caller.

where are you calling from? caller: georgia. host: go ahead. caller: i was just watching the u.n. secretary there talk about russia and china vetoing every time something comes up on syria. on the palestinian and israelis, every time something comes up to help the palestinian people the united states vetoes any resolutions to help them. so, what is the difference? host: thanks for the call. caller from woodbury, new jersey. good morning. caller: this has been going on for years. the u.n. is controlled by the i.m.f. for the international bankers and the whole thing is based on conflict resolution.

they create a problem and take both sides and we either go to war or we are nailed with another tax or this or that. and it is unbelievable. we don't go according to the constituti constitution. military arm of the u.n. and we are the main sponsors for nato. we use our soldiers as blood money. it is actually no good. host: thanks. david from gaithersburg, maryland. you are on the air. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm calling about the u.n. resolution yesterday. when last summer france i understand understandity get ted --

instigated the decision against libya, they used that to go kill addafi but they would use the power that the u.n. gives to them. host: thanks for the call. headlines in the "washington post" russia and china block the u.n. vote. the russian envoy said its partners had undermined the prospect for a deal promoting a strategy aimed at regime change by backing the opposition's pursuit of power and fueling armed methods of struggle. it left the diplomatic process in disarray. host: the midterm elections coming up on news makers at 10:00 eastern following "washington journal" our guess is camp -- congressman steve

israel. we talked about him as a way to take back the house of representatives. is portion. >> what is your insight as to why the super pacs for the house, senate and presidency have trailed so far behind their republican counterparts? >> this is what keeps me up at night. we have checked the box on all the five major strategic objectives we set out with. the one we still have to focus on is the fact that karl rove and others will come in with secret money and try to knock us off our feet. we didn't lose to the republicans in 2010. we lost to them. they outspent by $20 million but we were outspent by $30 million. they have the infrastructure, they have a donor network and

they don't have to disclose who is contributing. we had an inadequate response to the super pacs and now we have allies that are standing up and developing a response in 2012. host: we hope you tune into as we talk about money, politics and super pacs and strategy for winning become the house of representatives by the democrats. that is 10:00 eastern and it reairs at 6:00 eastern, 3:00 on the west coast. on c-span 2 book tv and c-span 3 we are focusing on beaumont, texas. looking at the history and the literary life of a city where oil was first discovered in texas in 1901 ushering in the petroleum era. it is also a series of vignettes on c-span.org/local content as the local content vehicle travels around to focus on

individual cities and we showcase them on each insurance, c-span 2 and c-span 3 over the weekend. if you want to check it out. c-span 2 focusingen our in-depth book programming and c-span 3 history. that is all weekend long. back to the gone calls on the issue of -- phone calls on the issue of syria. where are you phoning from? are you still with us? caller: yes, hi. i wanted to echo one of the previous callers about how america positions itself against a resolution against asisrael a on the apartheid resolution against south africa people had to die to go to jail to get sanctions. it is like full circle that we went to iraq and there were thousands upon thousands of innocent lives lost basically in

iraq. host: thanks for the call. every sunday on c-span radio we carry the sunday morning programs beginning at noon eastern and they begin with nbc's "meet the press." we are keeping attack of the topics and guests making way to the sunday programs. we will take a short break and come back as we listen it "washington journal" on this sun morning.

host: thanks for the call. "washington journal" on this >> politics, u.s. economy and u.s. foreign policy. beginning at noon here "meet the press." today host welcomes candidate newt gingrich. new york city mayor michael bloomberg, two governors, mitch daniels and massachusetts democrat and california democratic congressman javier besera. this week has congressman ron paul of texas. at 2:00 p.m. eastern it is fox news sunday.

chris wallace talks with rick santorum. virginia republican give bob macdonald and former congressman j. krfpc. watts. at 3:00 it is cnn state of the union. they welcome the maryland governor martin o'malley of the democratic governors so, and virginia governor bob macdonald. also former o.m.b. director. and house intelligence committee chairman mike rodgers. at 4:00 here "face the nation" from cbs. today they talk with candidate newt gingrich and the former republican mayor of new york city rudy giuliani. re-airs of the talk shows begin at noon eastern with "meet the press," 1:00 this week, 2:00 fox news sunday, 3:00 cnn state of the union and 4:00 "face the nation" from cbs.

l to them all on c-span radio in the washington, d.c. area on the iphone or blackberry on slight tkhrapbl 119 or c-span.org. host: we have the author of this donkeys" and thank you for being with us. guest: good morning. thanks for having me again. host: as you look at some lessons and write about this from the tea party and what the democrats can take from it what are some of your conclusions? guest: if you look at what i wrote in the book there was this incredible mobilization at the grassroots in 2006 and 2008 that propelled democrats back into

power and put barack obama in the white house and the democratic party was very strong at the local level. people were very excited about the candidates. and there was a lot of energy in terms of building politics at the local level and doing politics differently on the internet that helped democratic candidates. one of the things that happened n twe2010 is the tea party very successfully mimicked whether the democrats and president obama did in 2008. they actually did better in twe201 2010, so they started organizing on the ground at the local level and over the internet. they started doing insurgent politics and taking over the republican party at the grass roots level. they were very effective in mobilizing republicans and out conservative-minded tea party voters in the 2010 election. democrats to some extent

abandoned the model that proved so successful for president obama in 2008. so, that is really what allowed the tea party to do so well in 2010 and win so many seats. now in 2012 that sort of whole model of politics is up for grabs. host: was it a model or just a political trend in history as we saw in 1994 and we have seen in the midterm elections when a is first elected that the party in power loses seats and there were a lot of pair levels between 2010 and 1994 with bill clinton? guest: there definitely -- part of it is obviously just history as you mentioned, steve. but there were some interesting trpbdz in terms -- trends in terms of political organizing and developments that made this happen. democrats were out of power it was not just the fact of george w. bush's presidency that put them become in there. they had to get their own house

in order and i write about that a lot. the same thing happened to the republican party. it was moribund after 2008 after the bush presidency and john mccain's rather inr un inspirin candidacy. so they had a lot of things going for them. there was a bad economy, unpopularity of the healthcare bill all of which brought president obama down. but they had to get republicans excited about an alternative and they had to mobilize and bring into the party. i am the tea party -- i think the tea party was good at rebranding the republican brand so you didn't say i'm a republican, you said i'm a tea party support are that created distance from the previous republican administration and it felt like a movement and there was this energy made it easier for people to get inspired to do grassroots politics and do all the things you flood to win an

election -- you need to win an election. host: as you look ahead at the president's campaign and effort he is putting forth and his related political action committees what does the white house need no do and what does this president need to say and what is the strategy moving ahead? >> basically i think there are two parts. the first part is the president needs to reinspire his supporters from 2008. a lot of people, an incredible mobilization for barack obama in 2008 that didn't occur in 2010. that is a big reason democrats lost so many seats. it is important that the relationship between the president and his supporters be rebuilt. there is some energy and some enthusiasm heading into 2012 but i don't think it is at the point where they can feel confident. the second thing is they are not going to convince everyone on

their own merits given the state of the economy and world. then they are going to have to draw a very clear contrast between the president and the republican nominee, which almost certainly will be mitt romney. if they can't get their own supporters out on their own merits they have to paint why romney is not a good alternative. that will be a mental they will have to drive home among independent voters, blue color voters, affluent suburbanites. they will have to turn out those people on the fence. then in terms of their own coalition it will be important to get young people out, hispanics and african-americans out, get sing womle women out. that was really the core of the obama coalition in 2008. they have a pretty daunting task ahead of them. that said, i do think the

president has been doing better in recent months. i think it started with has jobs speech last september which was long overdue. now it seems like president obama has found more of a focus of his presidency. for a while after 2010 the white house didn't know how to react to republican begins in congress. they looked look to some extent they wanted to co-op the republican agenda. he wanted to find common ground g.o.p., talk about the deficit and cutting spending and i don't think that strategy worked because he didn't gain any independent voters and he kept losing voters.ic so, when the president shifted back to the issue that everyone cared about, which is jobs, he really was on more firm footing. then the fact that occupy wall street happened and the president is talking about the 99% and it is a make or break amendment for the middle class, i think that rhetoric resonates with a lot of americans.

host: what about democrats running with the president at the top of the ticket for the house and senate, how much do you think they will embrace the president and his message? guest: it depends on the state to some extent. there are democrats running in states like montana and missouri in 2012 who probably won't tkpwget that close to the president. it is always a tough calculation to make because if you don't get -- if you just kind of ignore him and try to distance yourself from him that kraots a narrative of democratic disarray and makes it harder for democrats in those states to turn out. that said, in the states that have turned further in to some extent they won't have any other choice but to have distance between themselves and the president. it also depends on how the president is doing. he's been doing better in recent months. his approval rates are ticking slowly up with the economy

improving and more jobs being created. it is easier for the democratic candidates to embrace the obama administration and what it has done. but to some extent they have to make an argument for what the president did because the president's agenda by and large was also the democratic agenda. it is hard to really separate them. so, republicans are going to try to use that as much as possible, use policies like healthcare to hurt the democratic heads and the democratic heads are going to have to make a pro-active argument for what they did while they were in power and also what republicans would do if they took power. i see that as being a really important component of the campaign. at the local level the democratic party really needs to be stronger. there was this 50-state strategy that howard dean did and to some that has been abandoned by the national party.

at the core grassroots level the democratic party has a lot of work to do. host: ari berman is a writer for "the nation" magazine. we will get to your calls and comments in a minute. on three separate occasions in the last week the president took aim at mitt romney not mentioning his name but in detroit saying some would want to have the u.s. car industry by which is a reference to calling for control of bankruptcy of chrysler and general motors. at the national prayer breakfast he took aim at the comment talking about the poor and president saying it is imperative for all of us to care about the poor and in falls church, virginia, his housing proposal put forth taking aim at mitt romney, using his words and message but not his name. >> a pretty steady decline about five years ago and government certainly can't fix the entire problem on its own.

but it is wrong for anybody to suggest that the only option for struggling responsible homeowners is to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom. [applause] >> i refuse to accept that and so do the american people. host: what is going on here by the president? obviously his strategy is to kind of suggest something but not campaign, to be presidential but state he understands what the republicans are trying to do? guest: he is trying to define mitt romney before romney is officially the republican nominee. the way they would like to do that is at a time when americans are concerned broadly about the 99% and what is happening to the middle class and amount of wealth concentrated at the top

of the economy, mitt romney is an un-abashed defender of wall street and 1% not only in terms of his own background but policies that he supports. that is really the message the obama administration and campaign is going to hammer home. that romney is out of touch with the problems that americans are facing and he would embrace the policies that led to the economic crisis and that when the economy is steadily but slowly improving that those kinds of policies would make things worse, not better. that is really how they are going to try to define romney. and romney, unfortunately, for him i think to some extent is playing into the white house's hands by making comments like his comment that he was not concerned with the very poor. obviously there was a prouder

context -- broader context but there is an element that romney lives in a different world than the rest of americans and if you look at how much money he has made, his tax returns, what he did in the private sector those are potential vulnerabilities that the obama administration is going to exploit this election. host: we are with ari berman as look ahead to the general election campaign and president's re-election strategies. ralph joins us from cincinnati, democratic line. good morning. caller: i'm originally from michigan and i just wanted to say about what happened in michigan the democrats got wiped out in 2010. we lost the governorship, the state senate, state house and the turnout was lower and the tea party apparently was quite high. i wish you would talk about the local, like the county party

organization, the democratic county party organization is very weak. few people attend the democratic party meetings. they used to have a newsletter and they don't have one now. i'm worried that the democrats will not get a good turnout in 20 2012. i think michigan will be in trouble for the democrats. host: thanks for the cuall. guest: that is an important point and one i talk about a lot. one thing that howard dean did with his 50 state strategy which was to contact red and blue states was to rebuild the local and state democratic parties to give them some new resources to hire people, to overhaul their data base and more effectively communicate with voters. that also effected the county parties, many of which also got an injection of energy that they didn't have before.

that was integral to the democrats' taking back power in 2006 and 2008. the problem is after obama won the president had his own campaign organization and he wanted that to remain somewhat separate from the democratic party. so, obama for america which was the campaign became organizing for america which was the next iteration of o.f.a., which is the acronym and it was housed in the d.n.c. but was quasi autonomous. so, it was not actually hooked into the network of the democratic party in many cases and they worked on the president's message and priorities and now they are working on his re-election campaign. which is great but i think they missed a major opportunity to put those people into the democratic party and transform the democratic party. because so many new people turned out for the president in 2008. and if they had been better integrated within the democratic

party the democratic party would have been in better shape in 2010 and would be in better shape right now. so, i still think that is a really important priority that do not get talked about enough, which is to try to rebuild the democratic party by having those obama people feel some sense of ownership within the party. obviously, not everyone who supported the president is a democrat and obama wanted to some extent to have his own brand. he was thought of as a party of one, the first independent president all those things. but at the end of the day he is a democrat and most of his supporters are democrats and the democratic party is going to rise and fall based on what he does. so, the fact that the democrats did lose so many seats at the local level in twe2010 means th they really need an injection of energy and manpower in 2012. host: twitter comment from joseph ramirez and a question for you. how does the tea party sell the

return of the policies of 2000 it at which time which give us the economy we have today? guest: well, there is always a bit of schizophrenia in the tea party at least from my perspective, which is that they rail against spending but supported candidates that spent lavishly during the bush era. they say they care about the deficit but won't ever support any agreements that with raise taxes, which everyone knows you need to actually get some movement on the deficit. and they rail against the bailouts constantly making it seem like barack obama did them when they were policies that in many ways were initiated by obama's successor -- predecessor, george w. bush. even in the republican primary a lot of tea party people are rallying around newt gingrich who in many ways is the

embodiment of the very k street industrial complex that the tea party claims to hate. and that is to some extent why i think the tea party might be having problems right new is because there is this schizophrenia in performs of what they believe and they are willing to fight for and it is not always totally consistent when it companies to policy. host: brian on the line from republicans from salt lake city. caller: the whole thing is the people need to wake up. look at the character of obama. look who he surrounds himself with. george soros is a bad man. he brought down the british pound. he made six billion and laughed about it. says he loves playing god. his sights are set on the united states right now, people. wake up. host: your response?

guest: that is kind of funny because george soros just said he didn't see a lot of difference 2010 -- 2010 the president and republicans when it came it wall street and he didn't seem all that enthused about funding the party or funding the president. at this point in time it is pretty hard to claim that obama is financed or controlled by george soros. host: there is from the "u.s.a. today" gallup poll that has a look at swing state registered voters and national registered voters. among swing state voters who say they will cast their ballot in november mitt romney at 48%, the president 47% that is within the margin of error and among national registered voters a dead heat. the president een and romney who appears to be heading in the republican until nation in august.

your response to those numbers. guest: well, it is collateral going to be a -- clearly it is going to be a close election. when you look closer into the polls, the number of independent voters continues to rise. i saw a snapshot of party registration and there was something lake 30% identify -- like 30% identified as democrats, 23% identified as republicans and 42% registered as independents. so the independent vote keeps growing, which adds a lot of volatility to the process. democrats have last some supporters since 2008 and gained bud they are basically even so the independent vote is swinging it back and forth and there will be a lot of swing states in 2012. there will be swing states that

the president won that he will have to defend strongly. there will be states he won in the west and south that he will have to defend. so, because the president won so many different states, 375 electoral votes in 2008 means this time he will be on defense in a lot of places. so, there's going to be a very wide electoral map. which is a blessing and curse. on within hand it gives him a lot of d paths to election so it is not likely that it will come down to one state like 2000 in florida and 2004 in ohio. it is likely to come down to a combination of states. it also means the president has to defend a tremendous amount of turf going into the next election. host: ari berman a graduate of northwestern university in evans ton, illinois. there is this twitter from jim.

guest: he is trying to tdo both. he had an alternate strategy. he caused a jobs plan last september. unfortunately the congress only passed a very small chunk of that plan. incidentally, the chunk they passed, which was jobs for veterans, seems to have been pretty effective. the unemployment rate for vets declined from 13% to 9% last month. that could be attributed to a whole range of factors but it is probably likely what the obama administration did didn't certainly hurt and probably helped that stats technique. so, he had a strategy that i think he would love if congress would pass it. but since they won't pass it he doesn't have much choice but to critique the turn which is to say this is what he would like to do and this is what the republicans are proposing to do and this is why his idea is

better. some of it will be theoretical because the congress won't pass some he will have to defend things that he has done which he will have to defend the stimulus, defend the healthcare bill, he is going to have to defend the various steps the administration took to prevent an economic crisis and prevent another great depression and put america back on the road to recovery. so, really, he is going to have it do both because it is not just going to be possible to do one without the other. host: gail, cleveland, ohio, on the democrats line. caller: it is good to talk to you, ari. i subscribe to "the nation" because of you. guest: thank you. caller: what is very important to me, ezra klein did a get body

of work regarding the budget deficit and it was in the "washington post." it showed that two weeks after president obama took office $1.2 trillion left over from the bush administration was put on his tab so to speak and then they took all of the policies that president obama had signed into effect as they checked in with the c.b.o. and joint committee on taxation, during the entire time he has been president and it came up to barely $1 trillion. all this other money that they tacked on to the bucket was the result of bush pillses. so they take the $15.5 trillion we are at now at $10.5 million when he took office you unextract they have $4.7

trillion and nobody does anything about it. host: well get a response and appreciate your foreigning ipho. guest: it is a good point she raises. if you look at the deficit and how it has grown, according to that analysis by ezra klein bush added five times more to the deficit than president obama did. many of the things that president obama gets blamed for that added to the deficit such as the bailouts were actually things that were initiated under george w. bush. so, this is an argument that i think the obama administration needed to make more aggressively. the idea that, number one, the deficit is a result of a lot of factors but one of the major factors was the bush administration and the various things they did. the tax cuts, the wars in iraq and afghanistan that were never paid for. the medicare part d bill. all of those things really adedd tremendous amounts to the deficit. then the fact that the president

had no choice of the economic crisis but to spend more money because when families were spending less money, when businesses were spending less money and hemorrhaging jobs, the administration had to step in and the government will to step in and provide some releaf. so, to -- raceway -- relief. i think he would have loved to balance the budget but it was not realistic. so when the republicans for cize the president increasing the deficit i think the administration needs to do a better job of putting this number in context in terms of where it came from and saying going to have to have a sizable deficit for some time while the economy is getting back on track. because when businesses are not spending and families are not spending the government will have to step in and fill the void. host: you can read ari berman's work on line at nation.com including a story the

strategy.s' southern what is that? guest: it came out thursday and it is at thenation.com. it looks at the consequence of redistricting in 2012 which is an important story that hasn't gotten that much attention and certainly hasn't gotten enough attention. after the 2010 census the parties draw new lines. in most places state legislators draw them. as a virtue of the 2010 election republicans now control the redistricting process in 20 states. democrats only control the process in seven states. the rest are home to either divided government or independent redistricting commissions. the republicans in particular control a tremendous number of states in the south which is a reversal from past years because even though the south has been trending republican for many yea years, democrats were able to hold the south in the state

houses which draw the new lines for many years. that flipped in 2010. republicans control basically everything. their strategy has really been to try to isolate democratic voters into as few districts as possible. and the way they are doing that is they are drawing democrats into these heavily minority districts and they are increasing the minority population in all of these districts and increasing the democratic representation in all of these districts as a way to concentrate the democratic party into as few places as possible and make the rest of the areas republican and to eliminate the white democrats. base in the south right now the party is 95% white but the democratic party is a multiracial coalition of while democrats and black democrats. so, if you could eliminate the white democrats from that equation that really isolates

the democratic party on a state level and national level in that region. so, that is really the core of the new southern strategy that i write about. host: it is called how the g.o.p. is resegregating the south. it is the february 20 cover story and available at thenation.com. sue joins us from shelbytown michig michigan. voted for obama but he has been a little bit of disappointment but the republicans really don't have anybody. as far as romney goes, i feel like he is out of touch. that his connection to the pacs like karl rove and the other one is newt gingrich and i feel like obama is going to win by default. i really like ron paul.

everybody that i work with says if you vote for ron paul that is a vote for obama. but the republican party i'm just totally disillusioned with them. i really am. so as far as i'm concerned i feel like obama will probably get re-elected. host: stay on the line for a moment. if the economy is one of the leading domestic issues if not the issue how is it where you live? >> it is starting to pick up. it is. i think the housing market is still getting hit pretty hard here, we still have a lot of problems in that area. but as far as jobs go, i'm seeing manufacturing jobs appearing that were not before. i never had a problem. i'm in the healthcare industry so i never actually had a problem. things are picking up in michigan. we did vote for a republican governor and i like him. i really, really -- i'm not democratic and i'm not

republican. but this election is just -- i feel very frustrated because i feel like there is not more to offer. i feel like we have to settle. isn't that sad? host: thank you for your call and comments. ari berman, your quintessential independent swing voter from michigan which will be a key state. guest: i imagine there will be a lot of people like sue who will feel somewhat the same way, which is that the obama one reason or for another wasn't everything they imagin imagined. of which was always to be expected given the unrealistic expectations and some of which was the sequence of things the administration did and didn't do a failure to market what they did as effectively as they could have. and just the fact that the administration is blamed, rightly or wrongly, for the bad economy. at the same time, even if they

are not in love with the president any more, the republicans, as sue said, are not presenting a very good alternative. i think mitt romney, while he will be formidable on many fronts will be vulnerable as well. he has experience in the private sector. he was a governor. those are going to be assets. at the same time, the fact that he is such an un-abashed proponent of the 1% in terms of background and policies is going to make him vulnerable. so it will be much more by any means necessary and a lot of people will probably pull the lever for the president just because they don't lake the alternatives. that happens a lot in elections. this won't be the first time.

she also mentioned the amount of money that is poured in. the purpose pacs and citizens united decision is distorting the electoral process. so much money is going to the airwaves. the fact that you can give a million dollars, two million dollars, five million dollars in the case of one bank rolling annuity is distorting the electoral process and crowding out the voices of every day citizens. and every election it gets more and more expensive. and this election is really campaign finance on steroids with the emerge generals of super pacs. >> there is a story about sheldon adelson and if newt gingrich is not the nominee i indicates he will support mitt romney and provide more money to the romney campaign. he is a casino owner in las vegas worth an estimated 20-plus

billion dollars. back to one point in your book, during the last three years of the obama administration has the president been more concerned about his base and the liberals within the democratic party or republicans and the right? >> since the 2010 election he was more concerned with the republicans and right and less concerned with his own base. and that really damaged in a lot of ways the relationship between the president and his own supporters. after 2010 it really seemed like obama was taking his cues from the republicans, pursuing his own austerity agenda. the debate in washington was about who could cut more and the president really seemed like he wanted to some extent to reprise the triangulation strategy of bill clinton where he tried to

find common ground with the republicans and wanted to find a democratic way of achieving republican priorities. the president and his team tried to do a similar thing. now, the strategy didn't work because republicans in congress didn't reciprocate, the economy didn't get better, so the president had to shift gears. the relationship between the president and his supporters started to get better in my view with the jobs speech the president gave last september. that is really where the president's base -- and i would argue a lot of end voters and public at large -- wanted the president to focus on jobs and more jobs and government stepping up and sp spurring a whole range of job creation measures. so, when the president did that and started to aggressively promote his jobs machiplan it m them feel bar about the process. then the occupy wall street

movement 457d and a lot of democrats became absorbed with that. and even though it was aimed at the democratic party in many ways along with the republican party saying there is way too much money in the process both parties have been bought off by a rigged political system in washington that favors the 1%, democrats identified with that message more than republicans did and you saw the president, for example, in the speech he gave in kansas last december, really adopting some of that rhetoric. it was not like he just took occupy wall street talking points as some members on the right said but it was true he did embrace the broad themes of the movement and did start it talk about the republican philosophy is you are on your own philosophy and democratic philosophy and obama philosophy more shared sacrifice and in income henlping reduce inequality and leveling the playing field.

my sense now is democrats feel better about the president's message and strategy than they did a year ago. host: a comment from a viewer saying the problem is not that obama did not live up to expectations. the problem is that people were not listening to what he said in 2008. mitt romney taking aim at the obama record declaring victory in the nevada caucuses, his second win in a row after winning in florida, a double-digit lead, he has about 97 delegates compared to 3 for newt gingrich according to the "wall street journal"'s latest count. here is what he said last night in las vegas. >> president obama demonizes and denigrates almost every sector of the economy. i will make america the most attractive place tphrld for entrepreneurs -- in the world for entrepreneurs, innovators and job creator

running e other people for president i know just how to do that. if i'm elected president my priority will be worrying about your job, not saving my own. host: comments of mitt romney last night in nevada. we go to itself in elton, georg georgia. caller: good morning. i agree with you in a lot of ways about the tea party and how they are supporting gingrich. i kind of follow the tea party in the sense that i'm a patriot, i believe in the constitution, i believe in the bill of rights. but as i look at the political process i'm beginning to realize that they are playing one against the other. host: how do you respond to that sentiment, ari? guest: there is a lot of cynicism about the political process right now and to some

extent it is justified. because the amount of money that is pouring into the political system is distorting both parties. it makes both more reliant on certain sectors of the economy and reliant on big donors in a way we have never seen before. the idea that 10 billion mayors and billionaires each gave a million dollars to romney and his super pac is disconcerting. the idea that the koch brothers say they are going to spend $100 million to defeat the president. there no doubt will be super p a everyone c money on the democratic said whether from hollywood or the tech sector or finance sector or wherever. that skews the voice of the average citizen. the politicians by and large are not that concerned about the everyday voter. they are concerned about who will write the next campaign

contributions. so, really, the money into the system, which was a problem before the citizens united decision has been greatly exacerbated by that decision. i think we are reaching a tipping point. there is so much disgust on both the left and right with the amount of money that is pouring into washington that at some point in time i think politicians will have to propose some sort of sustainable solution or else they will get voted out of office as a result. because there is so much disgust with the amount of money in washington today. host: we have one more call and one final tweet. from a viewer how can mitt talk about nue to how things are getting worse when things are getting better? is he relying on stupid voters? quick response. guest: he has a problem because he is making a contradictory architect. he says that the economy is not better and president obama needs to get out of office

as a result. on the other hand he is saying that the economy is improving in spite of president. so, both can't be true. host: nancy, baltimore, democrat line. caller: organgood morning. i was thinking about when the g.o.p. came in and over took the house in 2010 and they had their governors and was came out. when i watched the tea party and watched it from beginning to end and it was so many people, you know, on the media, if they would have told the truth about the tea party, we had to go get our news on youtube about the signs, hate signs. when you go on youtube you see a different story. you see the truth of all of this hate. i hate our black president.

host: can you respond to that sentiment? guest: i think the media did a pretty good job of covering the tea party and some of the extremism of the tea party. the problem was that people were confused about the economic crisis and didn't know where to turn and they heard the tea party saying it is all washington's fault, all the government's fault and people said yeah, we don't have jobs, we don't see the economy improving that much to be true. so people gravitated toward the tea party message who were not necessarily tea partiers. what you are seeing now as a result of tea party members in congress and movement having more visibility the tea party agenda is starting to be much more unpopular. the number of americans who identify with it is declining rapidly. only about a third of the public identifies with the tea party, which means they are still a potent force within the pulling party but don't have the broad sympathy among the public that they used to have. host: ari berman a contributing writer to "the nation" magazine

available at thenation.com and out with "herding donkeys" the fight to rebuild the democratic party." thanks for being with us on c-span. guest: thank you, steve. host: laterwe will turn our atto iran, the nuclear program, money, politics, and super pac's and the impact on 2012 campaigns. are our companion network, c- span2, focusing on books every weekend and c-span3, with american history. we travel to beaumont, texas, where petroleum was first

detected in 1901 where it ushered in the petroleum age in the state and changed the face of the energy supply in our country. you can get more permission on beaumont, texas, by visiting c- span.org/localcontent. >> he met his wife, edith, and they meant in a very picturesque place down the nile. he made a speech about the british empire which hurt a lot of egyptian nationalists. he had promised edith is second honeymoon they had gone on safari. they tried to recreate their honeymoon, but the crowd would not let them. there were basically mont. he was a media star.

even though he was not president anymore, they treated him like he was president. he did not want to have to meet with kings and queens, but he did in every country. they tried to get him to come to the palace, tell stories, regale them was stories about being president and the west. he was this cowboy with this strength in him from his days being a rancher. >> did you like that kind of attention? >> certainly. he was a political animal. fdr wanted to be the grim at every -- groom and every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. host: "booktv" on c-span2 every weekend and american history tv

are c-span and3. ash jain, thank you for being with us. you have put forward a report that spells out some of the issues with iran. the subtitle is "troubling scenarios. what worries you most? guest: there are concerns about potential nuclear capabilities and the first category is the if they would achieve a nuclear capability is the concern about a number of gulf states, perhaps turkey, egypt, states that would feel they would need to develop a nuclear deterrent because of their longstanding

negative relationship with the islamic republic. it could prevent -- present a real danger in sparking conflicts, and respiratory actions that could lead to a much more unstable middle east. that is one broad category. the other concern about a nuclear iran has to do with the nature of the iranian regime itself. if it has long been a supporter of terrorist groups around the region. and is run by a set of its tartarian clerics to believe there's some kind of -- authoritarian clerics and to believe the united states is a force for a bill in the region. it is exceedingly having nuclear capability, they might feel a much greater level of freedom to engage in the kinds of conflict aimed out the stabilizing regimes around them.

they could potentially transfer greater types of nuclear or other types of technology to terrorist groups, has block, -- hezbollah and hamas. it is a potential much more active iran that has caused greater concern. host: i want to come back to the news of this. leon panetta says there's the very real possibility that israel could strike iran sometime this spring. why did he say that? who was the saying that to dot? guest: i was in israel this past week for a security conference in there is a palpable level of concern about where the iranian nuclear program is headed. there are potential concerns that secretary of defense panetta has contributed and

suggests that there is a real sense that the israeli government deals they may have no choice but to take pre- emptive action to strike their nuclear facilities specifically because as far as the israelis in a neighborhood where they are much closer to the action, they are within striking range of iranian missiles. for a long time, the iranian government has targeted israel with the comments that describe the illegitimate nature, in their eyes. but there are comments by president ahmadinejad suggesting israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. recently, and ayatollah khamenei reasserted his position that israel is a cancerous tumor in the middle east. they feel the israeli government has no right to exist.

they have amassed huge arsenals of rockets and other capabilities potentially targeting israel. for the israeli government, they feel the have a limited window in which they may have to potentially use their capabilities to strike and prevent iran from preventing nuclear capability. host: i want to show the cover- up that the "new york times" magazine. inside, a story that has been getting a lot of intrigue. six strikes going to be made by home? you are behind these strikes that have taken down iranian nuclear physicists? >guest: there is a lot of speculation about that. the most credible focus has been around the israeli intelligence services. perhaps in cooperation with

others, but the point is that these efforts are aimed at trying to do what they can to prevent iran from achieving greater progress in terms of its nuclear program combined with sanctions and other international efforts to pressure the iranian regime to sort out or abandon their nuclear efforts. this is part of a broad international kind of effort to prevent iran from getting a nuclear breakthrough yet without having to resort to force or military action. host: in your report, you call iran as one of the most active supporters for terrorism. guest: and using the words from the defense department. -- i am using their words.

the iranian regime has a history of supporting organizations that have long targeted american forces while they were there in iraq. there is incidents that have supported the taliban in years past. the assassination attempt of the saudi ambassador in washington, we see that iran has amassed and has tried to focus on terrorist actions, not just in the region but potentially against the u.s. elsewhere. host: ash jain has served on capitol hill working for two senators. he is a graduate of the university of michigan, law degree from georgetown. we will get york on calls in just a moment, and you could also join the conversation online on twitter or send us an email.

will israel to attack iran? guest: again, this is the kind of sentiment that we were hearing when we were in israel. the minister gave a speech which has received a lot of coverage focusing on this closing window that the israelis feel is a purging with regards to their capabilities to pre-emptive nuclear iran. host: what does this mean for the u.s., europe, china, russia? guest: for the u.s., it is very serious. the israelis may be looking for a commitment, and the obama

administration feels they have more time, time for sanctions, time to evaluate these financial sanctions against the central bank and the recent oil boycott the european union has announced, they would like to see whether or not they will have the intended effect of putting pressure on the iranians to slow down and eventually freeze their program. there is a limited window of time after which the iranian government will have successfully concealed and hard and many elements of their reach from a military standpoint. the time clock is smaller for the armenians them the united states, which has a stronger said a military capabilities come and it will require some understanding of the months

ahead regarding how far the united states is willing to go to help support and commit to is really security bursas whether or not the israelis have a credible elite that the united states will be there for them. host: the national intelligence director, and general did it betrays the cia director testified before the house intelligence committee and the senate intelligence committee -- and the general david petraeus, the cia director, testified. here is a segment. "washington journal -- [video clip] >> they will not give up their push for nuclear capability unless they believe that it will cost them their hold on power. do you share that assessment? >> senator, that comports with

the assessment. if the decision is made to press on with their nuclear weapons and there are certain things that have not done yet to eventuate that, this would be based on a cost-benefit analysis starting with the supreme leaders' world view and the extent to which he thinks that would benefit the state of iran, or conversely not benefit. host: those were the comments of the national intelligence director. ash jain, your reaction? guest: that is an assessment that suggests the iranian government will make a calculation regarding the impact of sanctions and the negative consequences of it continuing down the road of developing nuclear capabilities. i think it is right, in

essence, that the iranian regime is not particularly concerned about the impact of sanctions on regime security. if they are not forced to make a choice between retaining their grip on power vs. continuing to bell and nuclear program, i think they simply carried down the road have been on for the last two decades, moving closer and closer to nuclear weapons capabilities. host: this tweet follows up on your previous statement wondering if we, the u.s., should go to war israel. would they rather take care of it themselves? guest: it's a good question. at the end of the day, the israelis have a commitment to the united states to step in and do whatever is necessary, including the potential use of military force to prevent iran from going nuclear. that is what they would prefer. the u.s. has a much broader set

of nuclear capabilities that could be used to successfully disarmed a nuclear iran. that is the direction they would prefer to go in. at the same time, i do not think it is right to characterize this as "going to work for israel." the u.s. has its own concerns regarding what the result would be of the nuclear capable iran. these are aimed at the potential impact on u.s. allies in the gulf, the free flow of energy resources that could be impacted by an aggressive iran. we're talking about the iranian ties with terrorist groups around the world and we have seen closer ties to britain in latin america which have, again, been cited in recent weeks. i think this is a concern that the united states has a fundamental direct national

security interest in. israel is only one element of that concern. host: donna is wondering if sanctions ever affect the government or just for the common people. guest: that is a very good point. sanctions have the most direct effect on ordinary people just trying to live their lives as best they can. the iranian government has, however, felt the impact of the recently imposed financial sanctions, particularly on the central bank's with the body of the iranian currency that has fallen more than 50% in recent weeks. they derive 60% of their revenue from the export of oil. as these sanctions and the oil boycott from the european union will kick in, the revenues will likely go down. this is intended to affect the iranian government most directly, but the open question is whether or not this will be enough to force the iranian government to change course.

host: good morning. thank you for waiting. caller: it is interesting, concerning the regular citizens of the country. they continue to do a covert funding of sunni radicals. does this emboldened the iranian shi'ites? it is almost a competition of who can beat more anti-israel. it seems like it would give aid and comfort to the other. i would just like your comments on this, because this is very, very complicated for me. thank you, and you have a good day. guest: it is complicated. part of what is driving concern for the saudies and emeriates is this sunni-shi'ite divide.

they see the rise of a divided iran and it is raising historical concerns going back. what is really driving the concerns of the saudis and other gulf states is not just this behaviorn, but iran's in this regime that has been in place since 1979. it is the kind of aggressive action that past efforts of subversion and supporter of terrorism that has been the nature of this regime. this is where the states in the gulf, arab states as well as israel, have really been focused and has drawn the ire of their concern. host: and other comments. if israel attacks tirana, that will make it our war.

-- if israel attacks iran. guest: there is almost no way to avoid being drawn into conflict if, in fact, the israelis take a preemptive action against the iranian nuclear program. we have seen in the past few days, regarding the actions they are prepared to take in retaliation, those will impact directly american interests whether it is in the gulf, the strait of hormuz, or american allies in the region and other priscilla is in the gulf, potentially even terrorist actions directed towards americans. they will be a very real concerns, and that is what has prompted this effort to reach some kind of understanding before the israelis decide to take this kind of action. host: talking about the threat of the israeli government, the

iranian nuclear program, and you can join the conversation on their facebook page. facebook.com/cspan, and some of you are already waiting in. miles on the republican line from staten island. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i suspect israelis got nuclear weapons to defend themselves. i think the iranians did the capability, they're doing it to defend themselves. guest: it goes to a heart of the purpose that a nuclear weapons capability would provide. as the suggested, the israelis presumably have developed a nuclear capability of their own and have it in place. everyone understands it to be

defensive and aimed only at to deter and prevent any kind of aggressive outside attack. the iranian efforts develop a nuclear program, on the other hand, and it is suspected they have gone far beyond that and it has to do with iran's past behavior in the region. they appear to be much more expansionist and they have long thought to undermine the legitimacy of their own neighbors. their support for terrorist groups and the efforts of intimidation and subversion, it has been well-documented over the last three decades. the iranian government prepares to be much more eager to use this as a shield, but rather they view this as a shield providing them greater freedom of action to back to more

aggressively as they pursue their broader in ideological and radical goals. host: pressuring the gulf states to end u.s. military presence is one scenario. we have a big presence in the strait of hormuz. saudi everett -- saudi arabia says they will increase their presence if this will be blocked by the iranian government. what about your scenario? >> it's a very realistic concern. , that they would try its best, as they have up for decades to try to pressure the gulf states to reduce or even ended the american military presence. the fleet in bahrain is a critical facility. we have bases in kuwait, oman, and elsewhere, so the potential

dangers of nuclear ron are those states that may feel compelled to acquiesce as a way of mitigating tensions with a much more powerful irna. we have seen states engage in that kind of accommodation, in more limited ways. it is an open question to how they would react if iran might nuclear. some of the bigger states, saudi arabia in particular, have indicated that they may be interested in seeking a nuclear deterrent of their own. at the very least, we're talking about an environment where there's the potential for much more instability of which would impact or could have an impact on the ability of the kind of energy supplies and oil routes we have coming out of the gulf. host: our guest is ash jain, a visiting fellow with washington institute for near east policy. in this essay you wrote on the

iranian nuclear ambitions, ayatollah, and a -- the ayatollah khamenei is focused, not ahmadinejad. guest: he is the one that tends to garner the bigger headlines because it is provocative statements and the nature of his rhetoric, but in reality it is the supreme leader of iran that happens the response ability and the nexus of power and authority when it comes to foreign policy decisions, national security, strategic objectives, and certainly all elements of the nuclear program. the president of iran has a much limited authority to deal with domestic issues, although he is also charged with diplomacy, so he ends up making the rounds making these kind of statements.

both of these leaders seem to share and out looking, a world view that is similar and involves the thinking have referenced before, this effort to challenge the west, to challenge state in the region, and try to impose what they see as the emergence of some kind of new international order that is based on the principles and ideas of the islamist revolution. host: from cancun, good morning. caller: thank you for letting us know where he is stealing this propaganda for, the two senators he has worked for. he has been lying ever since i have seen him on your show. they have never said they wanted to wipe israel of the face of the earth. he said the zionist regime needs to be taken out of the pages of history. israel has over 150 nuclear

weapons. they do not sign an alley on the -- sign in on the iaea. why is israel allowed it? whitey think iran is doing this? -- why do you think iran is doing this? guest: there is a critical difference between the fundamental nature of the government, a democratically elected government in israel, and theocratic regime that assumed power in iran through revolution a few decades ago. i think it comes down to a matter of responsible state behavior and who you trust? the israelis, presumably, have had nuclear capabilities for decades and no one has been particularly concerned about the is really is striking out progressively behaving in some way that would threaten other

state in the region directly. none of the gulf states -- i think it is indicative that none of the gulf states or israel's neighbors have tried to obtain nuclear weapons capability directly as a deterrent against israel. rather, it is the threat of a nuclear iran that has prompted widespread concern. again, based on the fundamental nature of the iranian regime and its past behavior, its past history and support for radical actions and terrorism in the region, i think it simply comes down to looking at what are the kinds of specific areas and threats that nations, including the united states, have an interest in preventing? host: let me go back to your estate. you write --

guest: it is important to keep in mind that iran is constrained in the kinds of ways that i described there. this is not the soviet union. but the iranian economy as a something like 25% the size of the united states. its ability to inflict damage and cause harm is limited to the support for terrorism and asymmetric activities. it is not a formidable conventional power. my point there was to suggest that if the acquisition of a nuclear capability that they're seeking as a way to overcome their liability that otherwise restrained and restrict its influence, it is a nuclear capability that would provide that kind of umbrella and shield that could give it much greater freedom of action to

create and to stabilize the region and potentially beyond. host: our next caller from gaithersburg, md. welcome to the program. caller: thanks for having me. i want to raise a concern about our long-term interests in that part of the world is been reported that the overwhelming majority of the iranian people support the ayatollah. given that there is a democratic movement among the think our policy, that seems to be one- sided, would adversely impact our interests in that part of the world? would it, in fact, emboldened the dictators to crush democracy? guest: it is a very good question in terms of focusing

on the iranian public. the polls suggests that interactions they have had with ordinary iranian people suggests of the vast majority of the iranian people are not interested in the kind of anti- western and anti-american ideology that the regime promotes. most of the people just simply want a better themselves and their families. they want greater economic and educational opportunities. we saw in the west, the green movement reached a peak after the 2009 election, that many of the people are frustrated and looking to try to challenge the bureaucracy that has ruled of the past few decades, but that movement has been largely suppressed through the actions of the government. i think our long-term interest reside in tried to help the iranian people in their efforts to bring about democratic change in iran, and ultimately leverage

their admiration for the west in a way that helps them bring about a better future. host: an e-mail from ken in atlantic city, new jersey -- this from liz smith -- to very good points. you hear this a lot. particular you hear this from the iranian government itself, which has argued, it has the right to develop nuclear capability, perhaps in response to the fact that other nations have nuclear capability. the problem with the argument is that it relies on simplistic legalism.

states that have signed on to the treaty are prohibited from developing nuclear capability. the reason this exist is because of the concern that it states code nuclear, and if the npt regime unravels, we will have a much more dangerous and unstable world. the further focusing on the question has to do with its behavior. this is not just the united states or israel but is concerned about iran that may have nuclear capability, it is the international capability as a whole. we have seen four security resolutions over the years that have sanctioned iran because of concerns the program is headed to work in a military dimension. in recent days the european union and the vast majority of countries that share these

concerns have joined in increasingly harsher forms of sanctions. this is -- there is broad consensus about concerns of iran. the iaea, the international atomic energy agency pointed out it is concerned the program may have a nuclear explosive device. obviously this is causing quite a big of jitter -- bit of jitter among the international community's. to go our topic is are rounds nuclear program. our guest is ash jain. margie joins us from making, georgia. democrats line. caller: for us to be the greatest country in the world,

we stay in war all the time, and i think it is a shame what we're doing to our young people right now. you all have about a thousand think tanks. i am talking about all of our guys in washington and you sit there and plans the wars. do you ever just think of peace and let us live and not be worried all the time? if you all are the ones that will start these wars. these kids that are committing suicide right now and the others that are homeless, it is like you're never happy. the more money you get, the more you zero. guest: i do not think anyone wants to see another military conflict, and certainly not one in this part of the world, which has been wracked by this kind of

conflict over the past several years. the united states has drawn back out of ouiraq. certainly the american people in the american government would like to see a situation which we not fighting future wars. countries could work out their differences without resorting to military means, but the reality of the situation is we will be faced with of by in very choice. the choice is allowing a radical regime in the form of a government to acquire nuclear weapons capability, or taking some kind of military action to prevent that from happening. there is still time to see whether the sanctions that have been in place and that increasing strangle that is

slowly being imposed on iran, that we can pressure are iranians from changing course over the next few months, but as i said, this may result in efforts failed will be in this choice that will put the obama administration or future presidential administration having to face a very difficult choice, because nobody wants to see another conflict. jon on the twitter page saying -- guest: right, and this is a very another good point because the conflict, unfortunately efforts to resolve it peacefully have

been a casualty in the short-run up with a focus on iran, and i say that because there's so much concern about where iran is headed in its support for hezbollah and hamas but it has slept very space to try to push forward on efforts to resolve this long-standing conflict regarding occupation of the palestinian territories. ideally there would be some way to move forward on both fronts, and in fact in the bush administration this was the effort that i was a part of in terms of trying to push both tracks at the same time, and unfortunately for a variety of reasons, it has now fallen quiet. host: britain joins us in the greenville, south carolina. -- brent. caller: i think if iran goes

nuclear, i think it is critical we did not have an e-reaction. -- we do not have a knee-jerk reaction. guest: i think it is critical we look at the options on the table. there is one option to allow them to go nuclear in detain them from acting aggressively. there are a number of experts and former government officials in the you was that are advocating for this option. i think that will be the focus of the debate over the coming months. is this kind of regime to terribl deterable? is it possible to detain them like we did during the cold war, or is this the kind of regime that will find ways to act much more aggressively, in ways that cannot be directly contained puritan .

host: our guest has put this essay together -- what else is in your background? guest: i spent several years working on capitol hill. i also had a terrific opportunity to join the state department and work with the policy planning staff where we look at a number of issues concerning primarily the middle east. in terms of my own portfolio, both through the late years of the bush administration and the early years of the obama administration. also another interesting aspect of the work i did for the staff, it involved looking at installing think our alliances and partnerships of looking at the future of american power and america's ability to lead over the coming years and decades. host: graduated university of

michigan in jamestown. guest: i think that is true. i think the saudis and their proximity, wycherley across a small water wake, they are going to feel the impact of a nuclear iran much more directly, and their vulnerability to potential sabotage, energy and oil refinery and various facilities that are particularly vulnerable to any kind of destabilizing effort has been to come in this has been the reason why we have seen public reports of them potentially looking at options that they would themselves look at to develop a nuclear capability, whether it is pakistan or some other means of acquiring its own nuclear deterrence. host: let's go back to the map.

i want to ask you how narrow of a passageway is that, and what kind of threat could are riran pose? guest: we are heard in recent days there renewed government closing to -- is threatening to close the street. -- close the straight. most of analyst, a military haage rather are concludlysts have concluded thy

wouldn't be able to do this. host: from the independent line. odessa is the next calller. caller: good morning. i want to thank you for c-span. i am saddened that every time we start denigrating are wro iran. iran elected at democratically prime minister in the 1950's and was during eisenhower administration in partnering with the british because of their ownership of the oil. they put in the shop. we were fighting with the way the sharp strong-armed the country, but when iran decided

enough was enough in 1979, and they did take hostages and overthrow him, we became venomous spirit and i want to thank and madeleine albright for acknowledging the fact that this country made a terrible mistake in 1953 when they overthrew that prime minister. nevertheless, we have been on a trip factory to destroy this country ever since. the people, and i resent the use of the term, ordinary -- i do not know if there is an ordinary person, so average works for me. we navigated the catawba we attacked iran by proxy. we impose sanction upon station.

this is the people of iran and not the government. guest: well, again, i think you are raising an interesting question about past events in the history of the u.s., a complicated history of the u.s. relationship. ran i think it is important to focus on the regime that is in place today, since the 1979 resolution, because it is this regime that is now determining the future course of the relationship with the united states and west, so our regime that itself has come under extraordinary pressure from within. the green movement started because the people of iran have been frustrated with the law authoritarian dictatorship they

have had to live under out for three decades. i think our focus has to be on finding ways to assist the people, and the ultimate resolution to the iran issue is to see what we've seen happen throughout the arab world where the people themselves find a way to rise up in and hopefully move peacefully toward democracy. in host: that our last few minutes, this scenario and worst scenario. guest: best case would be forcing the regime to change course and freed the nuclear program. -- term ultimately that this regime is replaced by a democratic regime that would be in focus more on finding ways to live peacefully, to focus on the development of its economy and post -- focus on positive relationships with the past

neighbors to the west. were stationed near real -- worse-case would be a conflict in the middle east that involves pulling burying power is in and pulling the destabilize increases we've long thought to avoid in the region, or perhaps -- turn nuclear capable are wrong that succeeds in breaking through and over time start to find ways to intimidate and destabilize the region through its use of terrorist abilities. host: ash jain joining us in washington. things you for being with us. coming up in a few minutes, we will talk about the super pacs, how much money they are raising and spending in this congressional year and how much candidates are spending so far. the reminder from nevada where mitt romney won by a two-one margin.

winning easilynny over newt gingrich to came in second. you could watch the results from last night at our website c- span.org/campaign2012. nancy in c-span steadier radios, good morning. >> as mentioned, presidential politics is on the agenda, including the u.s. economy in u.s. foreign policy. beginning at noon, meet the press post welcomes gop presidential candidates at newt gingrich. michael bloomberg, and two governors of india republican some of its daniels, and suval patrick -- duval patrick. ron paul of texas

. at 2:00 fox news sunday. bob macdonald, a supporter of it running for president, and j.c. watts who support its king bridge. at 3:00 cnn state of the union. martin o'malley, chairman of the democratic governors' association and virginia governor, bob macdonald. holz-eatkin.s will spea finally of 4:00, "face the nation" with rudy guiliani. readers of the private network tv talk shows begin at noon eastern with nbc's "meet the press." cnn "si date of the union" at

3:00. -- state of the union. was it on your iphone or blackberry. nationwide on a some satellite radio or go online e. >> a new america where freedom is made real for all without regard to race or economic conditions. [applause] i mean that a new america which everlasting attacks the idea that men can solve their differences by killing each other. [applause] >> as candidates campaign for

president this year, we look back up 14 man -- men who ran for the office of lost. go to our website to see videos of the contenders to a lasting impact on american politics. >> but profits continue to only offer one solution to the problem with which confronted. they tell us again and again, we should spend our way out of trouble in spend our way into a better tomorrow. >> c-span.org/thecontendors. host: we welcome back the director ford the center of conservative politics. we want to talk about one of our favorite topics, money and politics. let's dig into super pac fund raising. there are 310 at super pacs.

they raise in excess of $98 spent half ofpent havand have that. priorities of usa, 4 million. winning our future, 2 million. in red white and blue, just under $730,000. what do these numbers tell you? guest: these are big numbers being spent, and these are just through december. so we do not even have the last month, which is huge. i think the big numbers is post citizens united in the important supreme court decision, gloves are off. wild wild west scenario, there is ample latitude for whoever has money and wherewithal to spend it here. host: you have on your web site a lot of information. we printed out as one of them

for the president and republicans. you can see not only a lot of money, a lot of different interest groups aligned with this. what do the numbers tell you? guest: they tell us how important the bumblendlers are. we have the obama administration. we're waiting for the gop candidates. all we can see is that which is required to be disclosed, because it they are lobbyist, they must be disclosed. for obama we see a huge number of individuals that are racking up big money for the campaign. these are really important people, because they do the work of the campaign for it. host: here are couple of numbers. you point out 86 bundlers from california raise the minimum of $15.3 million for the democrat and president.

18 at raising $3.2 million for the president and the democrats. and four lobbyists bundlers freezing to under $8 million for mitt romney. guest: what is striking is there is a good number for the obama at campaign that is from wall street. it is in striking contrast to the fourth quarter results and fund raising directly to the campaign, because finance was strongly supporting the mitt romney campaign, dropping off quite a bit for the obama campaign. as the no. 1 source for political cash over time, that is a pretty striking contrast. host: let me show you the front page of this article of sheldon adelson. one of the key backers for newt gingrich. providing him up to $17 million

not only for public policy efforts, but also his campaign in the last few months. the headline from "the new york times" -- guest: it is extraordinary. the deep pockets that are can and are being kept for this presidential campaign. it is not surprising to me that someone was given big to support one republican candidate would

it, it that canada is not successful, off to support whoever is the nominee. s which whatever candidate i not successful, offer to support whoever is the nominee. $17 million supporting the newt gingrich effort, and now he is able to get beyond that to support of it from the campaign in super pacs that supports the campaign. host: we heard from iran leasing it is illegal to have any communication with his super pac, but what is the reality? guest: the reality is it is an extension of campaign. they are run by the same former top lieutenant, a senior adviser

of the campaign. people who'd just months before had worked for the campaign. it is hard to believe there is not a very good understanding of what strategy will promote this candidate best. they may not be speaking or coronate about the strategy, but they could even appear at the fund raisers and say give the limited hard money contributions to the super pacs. then the person for the super pac can save dig deeper into our wallets and give much much more. it is very closely associated. furthermore, the donors know the spirit and their maximum out thousands of donors even before the most recent round had maxed out to the mitt romney campaign and gone on to give to the super pac. host: if you are bill burton working on the democrat and president's super pac. if he picks up the phone and

talks to david axelrod, is that legal? guest: there is no enforcement mechanism. there is no call on the beach looking to see he was talking to. they are not going to come close to that line in the san because there is no need to. if they need to come with the consent a message to the campaign and do so publicly. i do not think anyone would risk, take the political liability of making connections or contacts with the campaign that would potentially be actionable. host: we will show you what the candidates have been raising and spending according to the federal election commission. our guest is she looked eliah cremholtz. good morning.

i think the spending shows that they are the party of green. guest: post-citizens united, there was a very clear majority in favor of supporting freedom of speech, the liberty that if you of the money, spend the money. that court and other courts have taken very strong stance on a number of campaign finance- related issues to say you cannot constitutionally limit someone from spending the money. sheldon adelson and any individual could have spent tens of millions of dollars previously. what is it different now is trade associations, organizations can tap their treasuries to run the ads directly themselves or get to non-profits or super pacs to spend the money for them. the big concern is they're getting to a non-profits we will

never know who is behind advertisements. host: reedy from wisconsin. call-- randy. caller: i am an independent, and they become extremely worried about large amounts of money being contributed to people running for office. the thing is, someone gave you a large amount of money, they are calling to want to favor back. guest: it certainly is a good argument, or at least a good that.to mak that ce corporations, unions -- these are corporations that have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to return our proa profit. there is a concern bought the money will ultimately buy

favors once there canada has been elected and is in office, lobbyists, ceos, the individual ponying up big sums of money will come back and say here is what we want. to the degree the benefactors of these campaigns and super pacs had business with the federal government, i think there is a much greater need there are two concerns about politics and policy once those kids are elected. >> this was supported by opponents of this case. do you believe that this is the clinton money? doe>> this is the new policy gog

forward. money has been equivalent to speech. all we can do is if you disagree with that. there is a strong disclosure act. there is a many disclose that. this is looking for specifically the disclosure of these big donors to independent expenditure campaigns. if they are giving to super pa cs., that will be disclosed to a degree. the donors giving to nonprofits will never be disclosed.

these are to bankroll the various political advertisements to be aimed at voters in the cycle. "let's go back to the story which dovetails to what we have been talking about we are underscoring the devotion to the larger cause. he was among of a number of political financiers on hand. are theif they their fai eventual nominee --

we have differences but ultimately the big challenge here is to find whoever can defeat obama. it is anyone but obama at this point. host: and vicky from virginia. caller: >> i have a question about all the money spent in campaigning. if we have more people contributing to our debt instead of the ugly campaigning that we would be better off. guest: they are free to spend the money as they wish. we need to get all of these messages out in the open. the money is helping

organizations to educate, to inform the electorate about these candidates, their strengths and weaknesses and the dangers. there is nothing we can do to redirect their spending. there are people who would say that this is absolutely essential to our democracy to have this free range of ideas. the problem of course is when the money is so great on one side that we are not seeing that we are seeking the alternative perspective. that is what we require of all public, our press, our politicians so that we are informed will be joined in --

host: we will be trained by our guest and we will discuss super packs. >> why have these super pacs trailed? >> we set out the objectives. the one that we still have to focus on is the fact that karl rove and the koch brothers will come in and knock us off our feet. we did not get beat by the republicans come we got spent by these outside groups. they have infrastructure, a donor network. they don't have to disclose who is contributing. we have allies who are standing

up and developing a response and 2012. host: disclosure would help but the republicans are blocking it. guest: it appears that there is no political will to put forward a new disclose act which would guarantee the information about how to these donors who are contributing to these organizations. and no politician, if there is enough support from the constituents, no politician will stand in the way of disclosure. it is incumbent upon the public to say they care deeply and they want to know where the money is coming from.

host: members of congress complain that not only do they have to figure out how to run against their promise but also these outside interest groups that run advertisements that many times the candidate is not aware of. guest: to be victorious, they have to win $5.7 million. to think that you need to worry about these a much more deep pocketed organizations who could swoop and at the 11th hour and a very hard-hitting ads perhaps filled with innuendo or falsehoods and not have the resources to respond, it must put fear in the heart of basically any public officials. you need to keep that war chest as high as you can. what that does the two challengers is they are less

likely to run. our guest is sheila krumholz, the executive director of the center for responsive politics. caller: 9 am an attorney and i have been following the results of this decision. it has become quite clear to me that this decision has allowed a handful of people who have been elected to know office but possessing great wealth to buy our democratic process. i have become convinced that this decision will go down in the annals of history on par with the dread scott decision.

host: tehran and that this decision could be the biggest threat to democracy in a long time. guest: it is a concern when all of the media is brushed by the messages of a very tiny elite set of americans. what other messages are we not hearing? this court has said, given the experiences of the last decade, there is no concern on the part of the american electorate that this appears to be corrupting. as long as we have disclosure, people can make the decisions for themselves,. the problem is, even though there was a decision promoting

disclosure become a we don't have the disclosure. the supreme court got that part wrong. host: and join the conversation. all this seems to be a full employment program. show caller: my question is in regards to the fund raising to the republican candidates. but understand that ron paul is behind mitt romney.

the super pak people walk right by his office. he does not work with them. is that true? that makes quite a strong statement in itself. guest: endorse liberty has spent $3.4 million to support his campaign. they're raising and spending millions of dollars to promote the candidate. it is true that he is the number two, the second republican candidate following mitt romney in overall receipts with nearly $26 million raised. a strong showing for the

campaign given that half of that money comes from small donors. that is a signal of great strength for the campaign. they can go back to them again and again to get them far beyond what they have given so far and giving thousands of dollars. >> from the fourth quarter and one sector of the market. the kind of contributions, let's take a look. mitt romney, 1.5 million compared to about 120,000 for the president and his reelection effort. goldman sachs employees, you can see the breakdown. bankamerica, 77,002 mitt romney, 16,002 obama. >> a pretty stark contrast from

the financial industry from hedge funds, commercial by is, in support of the romney campaign and they are moving away from the obama campaign. >> the president outlining his housing plan and the way to pay for that. guest: i think particularly as financial reform -- of course, the obama campaign had a big victory in its passage but now implementation is front and center. there is concern about how that is implemented and they are taking steps to fight that and in some cases to water it down and to clearly line up behind a candidate that they see as their own.

this is the number one industry. host: mitt romney winning last night in the nevada cactuses. we are keeping track of all of this on our website. sheila krumholz is here with the center for responsive politics. jack is on the phone. caller: my concern is that america has given greater and greater power to the federal government. that has made our politicians

the target of these influence peddlers. it has been gleaned -- basically made them able to be purchased and influence. the people they are sent there to represent are getting less and less representation from these politicians. >> for the organizations that: the candidates, this is a relative or a small price to pay a given the resources that they have, to be able to shape not only the outcome of elections but also to shape which policies are passed, how they fail, how they're implemented, how they are designed. in terms of corporations and in terms of the executives that run them, if they can give a million dollars to have a significant influence over which candidates

are in office, which policies are passed, that is a drop in the bucket compared to enhance profits. host: this is a lot of money that we use to see bent to elect members of congress but this pales in comparison to what we spend on halloween or valentine's day. now we are talking a few billion dollars versus multibillion- dollar afford these holidays. be thishere'll always arms race to raise as much money as possible and for those that have the resources to give as much money as possible. that is why you will see industries ramped up. they realize that campaign contributions and lobbying are two sides of the corn that they have at their disposal in order to shape the issues.

host: the president has a money tree that he is not telling us about. he is spending like crazy and nothing is getting approved by congress. we have seen this from the obama campaign. guest: over $125 million raised by the obama campaign. like ron paul, great strength in small donors. he has an impressive showing on that front in 2008. 47% had come from donors giving $200 or less and that means that $58 million more than the entire mitt romney campaign received a combined. obama's reliance on small voters

is a powerful resourced he can continue to utilize. host: riverside, ohio, democrats line. good morning. caller: of half of obama, the money coming in comes from under $200 and less. if you take the other side and you compare. with the big money coming from wall street, if you compare that amount, the other side of that percentage, to what romney has raised. can you compare those figures? i want to ask you about the numbers -- the efforts to add an

amendment to the constitution which would take money out of this. host: -- guest: to clarify for the obama administration, 47% of their contributions were from people giving $200 or less. that means that the rest came from people being as much as they could. of course, if they can get their spouse, their children, their business partners to give significant sums as well, you can delete pack a punch. microsoft giving $180,000 so far to his campaign.

these are donations directly to the campaign. then, you have an additional set of money going to the super pacs that can raise unlimited sums from on limited sources. they can come from corporations, individuals who run these corporations, donors who previously in decades past have given major sums to the parties. as to the campaign to get money out of politics and the proposal to amend the constitution. we are not a campaign finance reform and we don't support any platform for reform but we do promote this closure. we think that we can add to our job unless we have evidence as

to how the money is flowing into and influencing politics. that is our single campaign, to promote access to the information, meaningful and timely access. host: maybe we should ban campaigns on tv and radio and then the americans would have to learn to read print ads? the bulk of this money being used on television advertising. >> it is expensive when it is run by the super pac. they are flooding the airwaves and soon their nonprofit counterparts will be flooding the airwaves with advertising that is immensely expensive and buying up time. we have situations where the -- we may have situations where the super pacs are buying out

all the time. host r host: then there is a breakdown of american crossroads raising about $18 million. , restore our future, $17 million. host: the believe that restore our future has raised more. at any rate, that is a lot of

money. i think it is true. what we're seeing aren't the same names of individuals. -- are the same names of individuals. jon huntsman, the father of the candidate, contributing to his super pac. the former executive at bain capital, all of them have given over a million dollars. we have yet to see the blue chip companies weighing in in support of super pacs. they might be giving to their counterparts and we would never be privy to that information. caller: hello, good morning.

host: that megan back to the issue of disclosure. we are -- let me go back to the issue of disclosure. guest: and this critical decision really puts all of its chips on disclosure being there for them. we don't yet have it. i think it is a valid question to ask, how can we do our job to become informed about the influences motivating, the individuals, corporations, unions running these ads and to be able to consider the source, the credibility, and their motivation. why they might be lining up behind a candidate or running the ads that they are. host: sheila krumholz, thank you

for being with us. guest: my pleasure. host: every week, we're joined by a self-described romney of supporter. the "daily show clothes got caught up with him and did a piece on him. -- the daily show caught up with him and did a piece on him. >> i don't think you can find anyone in the history of america that is more fired up and i am. >> he is fired up about mitt romney. >> he is the best candidate. >> he is a great leader? he is probably the greatest leader. he is a leader. i think he will be the greatest president in history. history is pretty long. it is.

host: you can check it out on the comedy channel's website. caller: i love c-span. i have been calling you for 30 years. you are always so nice to your callers. host: let me ask you to your reaction about the peace. this has generated some attention. what did you think? caller: i really enjoyed it. i had people calling me and said, if anyone is fired up about -- that fired up about mitt romney, i will vote for me mitt. they were great people. they spent 8 hours. we introduced them to a lot of

people. the barbeque king is working full time for mitt romney. we have a great state director, the national finance director. brian williams, the press secretary. we will make sure that mitt romney is elected president and i think he will be the greatest one in history. host: your enthusiasm, when did that again? caller: the national director introduced my wife and i to him about six years ago. for the last year, everywhere i go i wear and a romney for present sticker. we have two bumper stickers.

i wake up every morning at about 4:00 and i told you -- i called you at your office money times. i think you will note that. host: one final question. how did the "daily show" story come about? did they contact you? caller: politico contacted the romney campaign and they said, who is your number one supporter. they said, joe mccutchen. we had a really good time. i'm really fired up. mitt romney is the most electable. i think he will be it the next president. i think you will be great for

the 27 million small business owners. this is the most important thing, he is conservative. he said, i will govern like ronald wilson reagan who is my hero. c-span3 joe mccutchen -- host: joe mccutchen, the self- described number one fan at of mitt romney. we will talk about the u.s. manufacturing sector, jobs and the economy tomorrow. ed whelan to talk about the decision by the obama administration requiring church employees to cover birth control. the kaiser family foundation on medicaid and the uni